About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
MSNBCW 4
MSNBC 2
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
worked for ronald reagan. what you want, you should tax. what you don't want as a society, what you don't want is a society, rather, you should tax and what you do want you should subsidize. my god, if there's anything we should be subsidizing, it's medical devices and research and medicine and science. and here is the administration coming with a 2.3% tax on companies, many of which are not profitable. shannon: yeah. and that's just one of many, many taxes tucked into the bill, but, of course, more than 3,000 pages and most members of congress admitted they didn't read it. it's good to see you, thank you so much for weighing in. >>> the resignation of the nation's spy chief has the pentagon releasing its version of events of the terror attacks in libya that left four americans dead. we're going to show you that timeline. and what looks like a joke is growing bigger. [ male announcer ] when was the last time something made your jaw drop? campbell's has 24 new soups that will make it drop over, and over again. ♪ from jammin' jerk chicken, to creamy gouda bisque. see what's new from cam
of the line of the conservative era that began coherently with ronald reagan in 1980. mitt romney was the ultimate remainderman. that's why they have an easier time of dumping on him right now. >> so the clown car has backed up to run over mitt romney. that's your image for tonight, howard. >> yes, it is. >> that woman who didn't like her husband, she drove over the guy in the parking lot a few years back then drove back over him again. i don't want to get involved in that legal case, but i do remember the pictures. let's go to john here. is this the clown cars as howard beautifully put it backing up over the guy that outdorked them and won the election even though he's no more or less dorky than they were? your thoughts. >> some of these people are not certifiable clowns who are saying these things about romney. i don't disagree with howard's characterization in general, i do think it's fair to say that part of romney's problem was that he was really always an incredibly bad fit with the republican party at almost every level. he was not most of the things the republican party is
. in the last 100 years, only four, right. so eisenhower, fdr, ronald reagan and barack obama. i think the idea that barack obama does not have a historic mandate when 44 men have been president and seven did what he did in two terms, he got 69 million votes the first time, 62 million votes the second time, i think he has a mandate. the things to be done that are great in this election happened to fall on the progressive side, in part because the republican party and conservatism has gone so far right things that used to be centrist, like environmentalism, which was a teddy roosevelt thing which even richard nixon was in favor of. >> john mccain. >> newt gingrich. >> these things have been now reclassed as liberal, right. the victories that the president has a chance to get which are historic, like on climate change, on immigration, are now progressive ideas because they've been left behind. >> it's now almost up to the republican party to grab a piece of that pie to say this is our victory too when in reality if they had done it earlier -- >> let's don't get in debate about the mandate. you ma
george bush was for september 11 or that ronald reagan was with the blowing up of the u.s. marine in beirut. >> brian: was there conflict -- put it this way, let's compare what george bush did, the administration knew and what we found out on 9-11 compared to what we fine out in 9-11, 2012. within 24 hours we knew who did it. within a week or so we found out we were mobilizing against it. no one was in conflict about who did the crime. no one said this was an internal attack, the towers fell down by themselves or an outrageous protest about our middle east policy. there was a movement together to get answers together where you had a movement that was totally fractured and a president who wouldn't answer any questions before the campaign. >> eric: let's take a couple months back, this was september 10, september 9, 8. remember we were talking president obama campaigning, instead of staying in the oval office getting intel briefings. remember, he houston, texas been to an intel briefing in months. everyone said don't worry action he'll get it on air force one or wherever he is. no.
raised taxes and made surgical cuts notice government services. back in 1982, even the gop hero ronald reagan instituted one of the largest tax increases in modern american history. what's going on? i this i it comes down to one important word, than word actually isn't taxes. it's power. here at the fiscal cliff base camp are the same players in the same chairs, the same issues as 2011 but man, the power dynamics have changed. if last year the name of the game was hold the line, this year the opening salvos are more about let's get things done. here is house speaker john boehner yesterday after meeting with the president. >> i believe that the framework that i've outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness, we've put revenue on the table. >> now, in politics, much of power is about perception. in a post re-election 2012, perceptions are mighty different. here's the president at his first post re-election press conference on wednesday. >> if there was one thing that everybody understood was a big differe
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
. bill bradley and i started with the first bill on this, and then ronald reagan picked it up and really carried at, and we got it done in a bipartisan way. when we did our original bill, we took out a mortgage deduction, we took out the charitable deduction, we took out everything, and we got right down to christie, it was 10%, 50%, 25% was the top rate, and we thought it was an elegant bill, but it could not pass muster political. we had all the real estate people and all the mortgage bankers and everybody came to town and said you get rid of the mortgage interest deduction is the end of the world, so we lost that. and all the university presidents and all the priests and all the other charities came and said you cannot get rid of that. the only thing we call on to was state and local income tax, and how we hang -- hung on to that i would never know. in the end, we were able to lower individual rates by taking more money from the corporate side, which i do not think you can do now. everybody is saying that corporate rate is too high in america, said to be competitive we have to get at
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)